Next Manager/ Season

[tinker]

Little should interview Pearson , if they can both work together then he should get the job.

 LWhoever buys the club should not matter .........unless little got no future and if that's the case then the new owner not the right one 

 

[Heretic]

10 hours ago, Ginko said:

I'm not sure why so many people are having so much trouble understanding Stevo's point, one which I agree with.

Regardless of his skills as a manager or a coach, his past behaviour on and off the pitch has shown that not only does he struggle to keep a cool head (something we desperately need), but he uses threats and insults and teeters on the cusp of physical violence.

The reason is simple. Here's how it's been going:

Anti-Pearson posters post about how much they hate Pearson because he's a cock.

Others rebut this with evidence that other managers have been like that and been successful.

Then Anti-Pearson posters post about how it's all about Pearson's managerial record and nothing to do with his personality, why can't people see the point?

Then someone like DaveJ posts with good comments about Pearson's recent and impressive managerial record (certainly by our standards, and even more so now we're a Championship club).

Then someone like you posts about how you're baffled why people don't get your point - you don't want Pearson because he's a cock.

[Ginko]

The fact you're grouping all anti-Pearson posters together as if every single person who doesn't want him agrees with every negative post about him negates that argument.

Some of us who don't want him feel that regardless of his record (which is hardly stellar anyway) he would not be a good fit for our club. As Stevo showed a few posts back, some managers work well at some clubs and are disasters at others which shows that sometimes history means diddly squat.

Until he gets the job no one knows how it would turn out, but we are all entitled to our opinion. I feel it's been explained well enough a number of times now and is proven to be a perfectly rational point-of-view, yet some people still can't seem to grasp it and I don't know why.

If he becomes our manager I'll support him and hope he succeeds just as much as any fan who wants him in the job.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Ginko

[sidcow]

I was about to suggest Malcolm Allison but Wikipedia tells me he died in 2010

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by sidcow

[Chicken Field]

I personally feel that the most important aspect when hiring our next manager, is that the club has to look in the long term, that our next manager plays a style of football that stays with the club for a long time, so that in the future, we start to hire managers that fit our players and style, instead of changing style every single time we hire a manager. This is what teams like Swansea, Southampton and even Leicester have done, Ranieri came in and played the exact same style as they had done before. The way that we have gone from, Mon, counter attack to Houllier, possession to McLeish Super defensive to Lambert (no idea how to categories his style) to Tim, quick and attacking to Garde Possession and defensive, is a catastrophe. 

We need to pick a "philosophy" and stick with with. 

[Zatman]

10 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

Should have stuck with Mcleish and given him the chance to build his own squad

well prefer give him a chance to do it than Garde

[TRO]

On 5/5/2016 at 21:54, Stevo985 said:

It's obvious that a good manager can still be a bad appointment. 

Benitez at Chelsea for example. Ranieri as Greece manager? Or Clough at Leeds United would be the most famous one.

You said yourself that managers have to be the right fit. I think that Pearson, despite being a decent manager (emphasis on decent as he's nothing special), would be an awful fit for our club. Hence it would be an awful appointment.

 

I don't know how many times I've explained that I and others aren't just dismissing Pearson because of his personality. I can't be bothered to repeat myself again.

I respect your opinion....but I disagree in this case.

I am not sure what the fit means( each case is so specific, so its hard to generalise)....at Leeds it was a personality clash between 2 ego's and the players were on the side of Revie......They could just as easily have gone with the flow and give Clough a chance however he did make some derogatory comments on the playing style of Leeds before he took over so he didn't cover himself in glory there. Cloughie wanted the glory of building his own team, so I'm not sure what he was looking for at Leeds a rebuild maybe?.....so I do understand your point about the "fit" there.

[just an observation.....When a manager takes over a football club there are varying degrees of how much work is to be done, so some can look like a poor fit, but in fact in reality, its just a big job and a lot of work to do to make your mark.....for example I am not sure what the fit is at Man U and who is going to be that fit on the surface , no one seems to fit it, but given the time some manager will make HIS mark there and then it will be deemed the perfect fit.]

Our situation is entirely different in as much as we do need a clear-out and I think just about everyone knows that, but having said that the new manager may feel he can get something from them, who knows.

From what I can gather Nigel Pearson ( thats if he ever does become our manager) was very popular with the players and fans from previous clubs.....He appears very defensive with the media ( so was Ron Saunders, when he made an appearance) He may have good reason for that .....but WE are not in a position to be looking for the perfect manager right now, so it follows that some will have flaws. Even those championing NP don't know for sure whether he will be a success or not, we just have a hunch and a bit of previous to say we could be right.

 

[TRO]

8 hours ago, Chicken Field said:

I personally feel that the most important aspect when hiring our next manager, is that the club has to look in the long term, that our next manager plays a style of football that stays with the club for a long time, so that in the future, we start to hire managers that fit our players and style, instead of changing style every single time we hire a manager. This is what teams like Swansea, Southampton and even Leicester have done, Ranieri came in and played the exact same style as they had done before. The way that we have gone from, Mon, counter attack to Houllier, possession to McLeish Super defensive to Lambert (no idea how to categories his style) to Tim, quick and attacking to Garde Possession and defensive, is a catastrophe. 

We need to pick a "philosophy" and stick with with. 

I understand your point, but it seems we have always changed managers in a panic rather than a thought out procedure.

We have also just preside over a period of our worst player acquisition spell I can remember......There appears to me very little nous connected with it and we have IMO a patchwork quilt.

It also seems to date that we have had no one to preside over such an organised format as you suggest, so I'm not sure how we manifest it, with the given personnel

With the people we have ( excluding Brian Little not sure what influence he has) I think it is wishful thinking.

I think it is a real difficult one is as much as you need to have more power in the transfer market than your rivals to make it work, you can then afford to be picky....I think our position has dramatically regressed from having anything like that.

Albion are an example of always insisting on silky football,so did West Ham..... but they would have been relegated by now had they pursued that path, they have had to introduce a bit of the ugly stuff and their new managers have brought that to both clubs.

I very much like the concept but think it is a bit too idealistic.

Ps Having said all of that.....you don't have to be so contrasting as what we have been with our managers.

Edited May 7, 2016 by TRO

[Vive_La_Villa]

I honestly don't care who the next manager is. It's the owner that I'm more concerned about. If it continues as Lerner than history suggests regardless of new manager it's going to be a struggle. 

[TheStagMan]

Should have stuck with Garde and given him the chance to build his own squad [emoji20]

In an ideal world , yes, but Garde had clearly given up. It is very difficult to come back from that.

[NurembergVillan]

I've had some ITK as I've got a friend who works at Sky.

Apparently our new owner is a Bond-style super-villan with endless resources.  He's already the major player, not just in the Premier League, but also in global politics and business. A few weeks after the end of the season he'll be ready to go public and the new manager will be unveiled the same day.  The story is that he's plotting to kidnap some of the best managers currently in the game (during the Euros so nobody will notice) and create a sort of human centipede of coaching genius.

The press conference will be called, Lee Preece will be eagerly clutching his new snakeskin clipboard, and the gathering journos will see our new owner Rupert Murdoch waddling in, Jerry Hall hanging from his every word, and unveiling the latest stage of his global domination program.

Finally, once the furore has settled, Ole Roopy will detail how he has enrolled the world's finest scientists to work with him on creating the unbeatable football manager.  As the assembled throng of notepad-botherers gasp, in strides the grotesque, slobbering, but impeccably well-dressed new Villa manager - Jürgosé de Blancellotiola.

You heard it here first #skysportsbreakingnews

[Brumstopdogs]

[cyrusr]

Ultimately we will have 2 ways we can take next season. Either we get a proven championship manager who will try and slog it out but should get us promoted and safe in the premiership and likely look at another manager thereafter (Pearson, Bruce, McCarthy, Hughton etc). OR we try and get the manager to take us all the way (Moyes etc).

 

The problem with Pearson is this. 

1. He comes across as a complete pillock and has acted like one in the past. Not the be all and end all but doesn't exactly engraciates me to him. 

2. He is flavour of the month because of Leicester. Yes he signed a lot of the players and got the back room staff in but let's not forget 2 key points to Leicesters season. Firstly they got rid of him and hired another guy to transform them.  Secondly it is a once in a lifetime thing Leicester have done and hasn't happened for 30+ years. Part of the reason why Leicester got the championship was the complete collapse of the standard top teams (Chelsea imploded, Arsenal maintained incompetence, Man City continued up their own arse, Man Utd want to bore people to death, Liverpool only can be bothered in Europe). It is a lot of things happening in their favour. Don't get me wrong, the effort, determination and work they have put it is incredible and they completely deserve it. However the fact they were one of the favourites for the drop was because they did not appear to be very good and part of that was Pearson. He is flavour of the month for something that he had a part of, not the be all and end all of it and is something that is unlikely to happen for another generation.

3. (And the most important one) Out of those "championship" managers that come to mind I am not overtly keen on any of them except perhaps Hughton. However what you get with Hughton, Bruce and McCarthy is that they have proven to get out of the Championship with more than just one team. They are proven championship managers. Yes it doesn't mean that they will be a success for us, however it's a damn good indicator. Pearson has only done well at Leicester. Everywhere else he has struggled. The others have a better pedigree and if we were to go that route I would prefer someone else.

 

However it is almost irrelevant if nothing happens at the top and if it is Pearson, then fair enough. IMO there are far better options than Pearson if we go down that route. 

Edited May 7, 2016 by cyrusr
Formatting

[TRO]

I would be happy with chris Hughton, very underrated Imo

would be pleased should we have him too.

[jem]

One out of work Manager we can rule out is Brendan Rodgers who will be appointed the new Swansea Manager at season end.Mixed feelings down here in Swansea amongst the fans.

[VillaJ100]

It's quite rare for a manager to come back and be as successful as last time. It's only been a couple of years though so he probably has as good a chance as anyone who's gone back. 

[Reivax_Villa]

I'm hoping Brighton do not win today so that we can look to Chris Houghton

[TRO]

16 hours ago, Ginko said:

The fact you're grouping all anti-Pearson posters together as if every single person who doesn't want him agrees with every negative post about him negates that argument.

Some of us who don't want him feel that regardless of his record (which is hardly stellar anyway) he would not be a good fit for our club. As Stevo showed a few posts back, some managers work well at some clubs and are disasters at others which shows that sometimes history means diddly squat.

Until he gets the job no one knows how it would turn out, but we are all entitled to our opinion. I feel it's been explained well enough a number of times now and is proven to be a perfectly rational point-of-view, yet some people still can't seem to grasp it and I don't know why.

If he becomes our manager I'll support him and hope he succeeds just as much as any fan who wants him in the job.

So by deduction, are you saying that all anti-Pearson posters have different reasons for not seeing him as a good fit or do they all agree on specific criteria?

[Ginko]

I don't know, it's not like we gather together every month for an 'Anti-Pearson Moot'. 

I suspect everyone has varying reasons as to why they don't want Pearson. The point I was making is that I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand why some fans don't think he'd be a good fit for Aston Villa.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ginko

[terrytini]

16 minutes ago, Ginko said:

I don't know, it's not like we gather together every month for an 'Anti-Pearson Moot'. 

I suspect everyone has varying reasons as to why they don't want Pearson. The point I was making is that I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand why some fans don't think he'd be a good fit for Aston Villa.

I've stayed off the Pearson merry go round for a week or so as 'Ive made my own views clear, he isn't my number one choice but he's worth a shout, and certainly worth a hearing by those appointing.

I think the problem of understanding you refer to boils down to this - those who think he is a contender do not overplay his successes, merely state he has a reasonable record. They do not say he has a great character, merely that aspects of his character may be good, and that the negatives are over played.

Now IMO that sums up 90% of  (not really 'pro -Pearson' but 'Pearson is a reasonable candidate' posts.

The trouble is on the other side you don't have a lot of reasonable 'why I don't think he would be a good fit' posts, unfortunately. The ones that are are not hard to understand.

Instead, if you go back through the thread it is littered with abuse, name calling, unreasonable diminishment of his (again, reasonable) record, and, worst of all, character assassination based on a handful of incidents in some cases no different to what many others have done. I've even seen people bring up the matter of his sons behaviour !! ( And an implicit casual connection to racism - when he is quite the opposite of a racist having taken positive action on that score).

And what tends to happen is the reduction of the character stuff by sound argument brings up the record stuff, and the pointing out of the record brings up the character.

Which leads many to think those opposed are largely simply against him, for no obvious, justifiable, logical, reason.

Where people have simply said, 'I'd prefer X because they have done this and that ', or 'I'd prefer unknown X because of this', or 'I think we need so and so' - nobody has taken issue with their preferences. 

Cue exactly the same thing following this analysis.